I would like to return this discussion back to mathematical constants,especially to Pi, which has clear geometrical/topologicalnature/origin (perhaps it has additionally the physical nature toobut I am not concerned about that part for now). and is not inventedby the pen on the piece of paper.There are many formula’s for Pi. I presume (I am guessing – pleasecorrect me if I am wrong) that originally certain method of Picomputation (whether it was in close form formula format or otherwise,such as iterative approach – I don’t know, sorry, – but in my line ofthinking it doesn’t matter, which specifically it is/was) .The results produced of all (or some) subsequent independent formulais compared with above “standard” for correctness – am I correct sofar ?Now if you agree with me in above, – then for each of such *new*formulas (being under the test) there is some uncertainty whether thisformula is true or not – would you agree with that ? If so, then whySolomonoff’s methodology is not applicable (in some form ) ?

Also (returning now to the world of physics and going on another pathof sought) – why some sort of “reverse” methodology (vs Solomonoff’sone) can not be be developed ?Here is potential example of such “reverse” methodology applicability:the physicists agree that Einstein formula constitutes calculationalprecision improvement over Newton’s one

(irregardless whether such calculational precision improvement

is practically significant when the velocities are *close* to speed

of light or insignificant in otherwise situations) .So could we say that the Newton’s is * more distorted due to “noise”*whereas Einstein’s one contains less noise and is closer to the*absolute truth* (for the issue concerned) ?